Photo of Unborn Baby’s Hand Continues to Change Hearts and Lives

[Alonzo]

One moment can change your life. That’s what Michael Clancy has discovered in the eight and a half years since he snapped the groundbreaking photo of an unborn baby clutching his doctor’s hand during fetal surgery.

Clancy is now a fervent pro-lifer, spreading the message that unborn babies are precious human beings and deserve protection. He will be a featured speaker at the upcoming NRL Convention in Washington, D.C., July 3–5.

“It was the earliest human interaction ever recorded,” Clancy told NRL News. “It proved that the child at 21 weeks in utero is a reactive human being.”

When he took the photo in August 1999, Clancy was a freelance photographer filming the fetal surgery procedure for USA Today. Unborn baby Samuel Armas had been diagnosed with spina bifida and hydrocephalus, which occur when the spinal column fails to fuse properly, leaving a lesion (or opening) that is highly susceptible to infection. Dr. Joseph Bruner and his team at Vanderbilt University were operating to close the lesion.

After the incision was made in mother Julie Armas’s abdomen, her uterus was removed and laid on her thighs. An opening was made in the uterus, and the surgeons were supposed to operate on Samuel without any part of his body emerging from inside.

However, as Clancy eloquently describes on his web site, www.michaelclancy.com, “out of the corner of my eye I saw the uterus shake, but no one’s hands were near it. It was shaking from within. Suddenly, an entire arm thrust out of the opening, then pulled back until just a little hand was showing.

“The doctor reached over and lifted the hand, which reacted and squeezed the doctor’s finger. As if testing for strength, the doctor shook the tiny fist. Samuel held firm. I took the picture! Wow! It happened so fast that the nurse standing next to me asked, ‘What happened?’ ‘The child reached out,’ I said. ‘Oh. They do that all the time,’ she responded.”

The amazing photograph of Samuel reaching out to his doctor appeared in USA Today and The Tennessean September 7, 1999. Although Clancy never sought notoriety, his work immediately caught the attention of the media and of people around the world.

Clancy was shocked, however, when fetal surgeon Joseph Bruner told USA Today in May 2000 that the photo did not show purposeful movement by Samuel. Bruner claimed that he saw the hand near the incision and he “reached over and picked it up. … The baby did not reach out. The baby was anesthetized. The baby was not aware of what was going on.”

But Clancy posted on his web site the series of frames that depict the moment of contact between Samuel and Dr. Bruner, and they show that Samuel is moving his own hand, grasping the doctor.

“The doctor questioned my credibility,” Clancy told NRL News. “But Samuel punched out, and even damaged the surgical opening. That 21-week-old child reacted to the touch of his surgeon.”

Clancy went on to testify at a congressional hearing in 2003 along with then-three-year-old Samuel, who was born 15 weeks after his surgery. During the hearing, as reported in National Review, Sen. Sam Brownback pointed to a large copy of Clancy’s photo and asked Samuel who it was. “Baby Samuel,” he answered. Brownback then asked what was happening. “They fixed my boo-boo,” said Samuel.

Although he considers himself “shy,” Clancy agreed to speak at the annual banquet of a local crisis pregnancy center about two and a half years ago. After he spoke, “they gave me the first standing ovation I ever had,” Clancy recalled. “Afterwards, 20 to 30 people were lined up to speak with me, and told me I need to continue telling my story.”

Clancy listened to their advice, and is now telling people about his first-hand witness to the humanity of the unborn. He also encourages people to download the photo from his web site and distribute it far and wide.

“It changes one heart at a time, that’s what this picture does,” he said. “This is God’s work. This is the youngest interaction with a child inside the womb ever recorded. As long as it keeps being put where people can see it, it can save lives.”

http://www.nrlc.org/news/2008/NRL04/Photo.html

http://www.truthorfiction.com/images/Samuel%20Armas.jpg

[PostmodernProphet]

thanks, Zo, I had never seen that before....

[Osborn F. Enready]

“It proved that the child at 21 weeks in utero is a reactive human being.”

ROFLMAO.....

It doesn't prove JACK.

[PostmodernProphet]

dang right.....that frickin' parasite should keep it's hands to itself.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

I am not saying it isn't a "wow" moment, or a neat thing to observe.....

I am saying, accurately, that it does NOT prove anything.

[PostmodernProphet]

I am not saying it isn't a "wow" moment, or a neat thing to observe.....

I am saying, accurately, that it does NOT prove anything.

about the fetus or about you?.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
about the fetus or about you?.....

About either. ;)

[cronic]

I've never seen this..
when looking at it for the first time.. I think.. wow..

for the record.. I am pro- choice..( barely ), but sometimes I question why when I see things like this.... actually just the thought of abortion makes me feel sad...I hate seeing abortion happen..

What I don't like about it is I do feel another life is being taken away..

I'd like to see some more regulations regarding abortion.

Mainly.. after one mistake.. its time to get them tubes tied.

I know a lady who has got pregnant 3 different times now and aborted the babies.. and why?.. because she didn't want her husband to find out..

this is where I do have a major problem with abortion... time after time.. yano.

If someone has been raped.. or incest or maybe a visible birth defect.. or maybe.. just a very young girl made a mistake... (not that making one mistake is any better or less trivial then making 3,4, or 5 mistakes..)

Then.. abortion is probably a better way to go for whatever particular reasons involved.

But to just get pregnant and all because, .oops.. i didnt use birth control, especially more then once is just wrong and irrresponsible.. and I think if after one mistake or accident.. society should maybe step in and see to it that no more mistakes or accidents can happen.

I guess everyone views things differently and where the picture in question may prove nothing to some.. it tells me there is life right there..holding a hand.. feeling.. sensing.. breathing..

yep.. that is a life in the picture..

[Mia]

I wonder why we even waste resources doing surgery on parasites. That's weird.

I wonder when some people will see that even if the fetus can technically be classified as temporarily parasitic, that it is clearly human life regardless. Deserving of perhaps a tad bit of respect.

Hell, I carry bugs outside instead of killing them.

Awesome article and pic, thanks Zo.

[cronic]

I wonder why we even waste resources doing surgery on parasites. That's weird.

I wonder when some people will see that even if the fetus can technically be classified as temporarily parasitic, that it is clearly human life regardless. Deserving of perhaps a tad bit of respect.

Hell, I carry bugs outside instead of killing them.

Awesome article and pic, thanks Zo.


Thank you Mia..
I personally think anyone calling this baby in the picture a parasite is a parasite themselves.

How can one not see, that is a life there in the picture...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I know we would get along.. I don't step on spiders either and I've been known to open the door to let flies out rather then in...
( sometimes it doesn't work to good tho the fly thing...haha )

[Alonzo]

Now that I'm thinking of it, this also provides an interesting look at the way many pro-lifers and pro-choicers see things. One the one hand it looks very convincing on the sides of pro lifers.

But, at the same time, the doctor said the fetus was completely anesthetized. Also, infants have multiple instinctual reflexes, the grasping reflex is one of them. So is the stepping reflex (lift up the baby and it appears to walk). Here's a list of some of them:

* Rooting Reflex: The rooting reflex is most evident when an infant's cheek is stroked. The baby responds by turning his or her head in the direction of the touch and opening their mouth for feeding.
* Gripping Reflex: Babies will grasp anything that is placed in their palm. The strength of this grip is strong, and most babies can support their entire weight in their grip.
* Toe Curling Reflex: When the inner sole of a baby’s foot is stroked, the infant will respond by curling his or her toes. When the outer sole of a baby’s foot is stroked, the infant will respond by spreading out their toes.
* Stepping Reflex: When an infant is held upright with his or her feet placed on a surface, he or she will lift their legs as if they are marching or stepping.
* Sucking Reflex: The sucking reflex is initiated when something touches the roof of an infants mouth. Infants have a strong sucking reflex which helps to ensure they can latch onto a bottle or breast. The sucking reflex is very strong in some infants and they may need to suck on a pacifier for comfort.
* Startle/Moro Reflex: Infants will respond to sudden sounds or movements by throwing their arms and legs out, and throwing their heads back. Most infants will usually cry when startled and proceed to pull their limbs back into their bodies.
* Galant Reflex: The galant reflex is shown when an infants middle or lower back is stroked next to the spinal cord. The baby will respond by curving his or her body toward the side which is being stroked.
* Tonic Neck Reflex: The tonic neck reflex is demonstrated in infants who are placed on their abdomens. Whichever side the child’s head is facing, the limbs on that side will straighten, while the opposite limbs will curl.


http://www.mamashealth.com/child/inreflex.asp

The thing is the baby isn't consciously doing those things and, in most cases, the baby stops doing those things. For example, the stepping reflex disappears before the baby can even begin to walk. It doesn't lead to walking, it's just something they innately do.

You have the doctor, performing surgery, and a photographer in the room, and the word of the photographer is held up in higher regard? They also seem to ignore the distinction between a reflex and an intentional response.

I wonder why we even waste resources doing surgery on parasites. That's weird.

You wouldn't do it if the mother didn't ask for it.

[Mia]

I killed a bug once when I was a child and my father reamed me out. 'What did that bug do to you?' 'What cause did you have to murder him?'

Followed was a long lecture on how every living thing has a purpose, and no one has the right to kill it unless it poses an imminent danger to themselves or another.

(I never did that again ;-)

I remain pro-choice for the instances where a fetus poses a danger to it's mother, or 'host' as some say.

[cronic]

The thing is the baby isn't consciously doing those things and, in most cases, the baby stops doing those things. For example, the stepping reflex disappears before the baby can even begin to walk. It doesn't lead to walking, it's just something they innately do.

You have the doctor, performing surgery, and a photographer in the room, and the word of the photographer is held up in higher regard? They also seem to ignore the distinction between a reflex and an intentional response.


I suppose so.
and I suppose thats enough in the mind of some to say.. its not a human life yet.

I sure do tho..
Probably because I'm an old softie..
perhaps.. too much compassion for life?

[Mia]

The thing is the baby isn't consciously doing those things and, in most cases, the baby stops doing those things. For example, the stepping reflex disappears before the baby can even begin to walk. It doesn't lead to walking, it's just something they innately do.

Doesn't make a difference to me. Reflexes are still marks of a living being.

[cronic]

I killed a bug once when I was a child and my father reamed me out. 'What did that bug do to you?' 'What cause did you have to murder him?'

Followed was a long lecture on how every living thing has a purpose, and no one has the right to kill it unless it poses an imminent danger to themselves or another.

(I never did that again ;-)

I remain pro-choice for the instances where a fetus poses a danger to it's mother, or 'host' as some say.


I have had that speech givin to me to Mia growing up and I have given it to my daughter as well..:peace:

[Alonzo]

Doesn't make a difference to me. Reflexes are still marks of a living being.

No one questions whether it's alive, they question whether it deserves rights, especially when those rights restrict what the mother can and cannot do.

To say it's a "person" or that it's "fully human", or simply "conscious" is different then merely being alive.

[Mia]

I have had that speech givin to me to Mia growing up and I have given it to my daughter as well..:peace:


Good! :clapper:

Let's keep passing that on - maybe it could become a new 'thing'. :thumbsup:

Too many people think that anything is OK if it serves their convenience.

:help:

[Mia]

No one questions whether it's alive, they question whether it deserves rights, especially when those rights restrict what the mother can and cannot do.

To say it's a "person" or that it's "fully human", or simply "conscious" is different then merely being alive.

Right, well obviously I'm in the camp that thinks it has rights, as do bugs and puppies. I think I have greater rights than bugs, and sometimes puppies, even less often I agree I have more rights than a fetus, but that is different than saying it has no rights.

Restriction of what a mother can and cannot do is not a good argument.

My dog restricts what I can do. If I go out to dinner, I can't go straight to clubbing because I have to come home and let her pee.

I can't spontaneously spend the night somewhere for the same reason.

If I had a baby, it would restrict me more than a fetus in my uterus, as anyone with a newborn can attest to, so can I kill it?

[cronic]

Good! :clapper:

Let's keep passing that on - maybe it could become a new 'thing'. :thumbsup:

Too many people think that anything is OK if it serves their convenience.

:help:

I'm down with that....:cool:

oh...psssssst..could you empty your pms so I can send you another..lol
( says your all full up..)

[Alonzo]

Right, well obviously I'm in the camp that thinks it has rights, as do bugs and puppies. I think I have greater rights than bugs, and sometimes puppies, even less often I agree I have more rights than a fetus, but that is different than saying it has no rights.

Considering the rights of the fetus necessarily require restricting the rights of the mother, it has none. The rights of a bug, puppy etc. do not innately require such a restriction.

Restriction of what a mother can and cannot do is not a good argument.

My dog restricts what I can do. If I go out to dinner, I can't go straight to clubbing because I have to come home and let her pee.

I can't spontaneously spend the night somewhere for the same reason.

If I had a baby, it would restrict me more than a fetus in my uterus, as anyone with a newborn can attest to, so can I kill it?

You can have your baby or dog adopted by someone else, and morally, and often legally, you would be required to if you could not adequately care for them.

Neither the puppy, nor the child, is dependent on you and you alone. It's dependent on some other being, but not specifically you.

[Mia]

Oopsie - neither is a fetus. It can be implanted elsewhere.

Mia: -2-

Zo: -0-

[Osborn F. Enready]

Mia said:
I wonder why we even waste resources doing surgery on parasites. That's weird.

The use of the term parasite is in relation to the FACT it is a FULLY DEPENDENT LIFE FORM, thereby, a parasitic life on a HOST life, that being the mother.

Its a term of the STATE of the fetus, not a DEFINITION of the fetus.

They are doing surgery due to the extension of the WILL of the mother to deliver a healthy fetus into personhood at birth.

Mia said:
I wonder when some people will see that even if the fetus can technically be classified as temporarily parasitic, that it is clearly human life regardless.

I have never, not once ever, disputed that. If you think I have, prove it by quoting me please.

Mia said:
Deserving of perhaps a tad bit of respect.

I respect all life, WITHIN REASON AND LOGICAL PERSPECTIVE. I don't let emotional or religious mumbo jumbo interfere where logic and reason demand priority.

Cronic said:
Thank you Mia..
I personally think anyone calling this baby in the picture a parasite is a parasite themselves.

Ditto pal.

I didn't CALL anything a parasite.... I said a FETUS is PARASITIC to ITS HOST, the MOTHER.

Reading and comprehension is fundamental.

[Alonzo]

Oopsie - neither is a fetus. It can be implanted elsewhere.

Mia: -2-

Zo: -0-

You need to explain that to your nearest hospital, as they seem completely unaware of that.

[PostmodernProphet]

I didn't CALL anything a parasite.... I said a FETUS is PARASITIC to ITS HOST, the MOTHER.

Reading and comprehension is fundamental.

lol, Osborne....."I didn't call anything a parasite....It's a parasite".....if you want to hide your mistakes, at least don't repeat it in the next sentence....

[Osborn F. Enready]

Once again, no quote PMP because you are constructing your reality around pre-conceived reality that doesn't actually exist.

I didn't say they are parasites (as in defining the ENTITY)
I said they are PARASITIC (as in their STATE of life as a living ENTITY)

But thanks for the chuckle.... ;)

[PostmodernProphet]

Once again, no quote PMP because you are constructing your reality around pre-conceived reality that doesn't actually exist.

I didn't say they are parasites (as in defining the ENTITY)
I said they are PARASITIC (as in their STATE of life as a living ENTITY)

But thanks for the chuckle.... ;)


the amusing part is that you really think there is a difference....

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
the amusing part is that you really think there is a difference....

Well, isn't it obvious?

A fetus only lives parasiticly until birth.
A parasite lives parasiticly until death.

Some definitions for you:

PARASITE:
an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host .

n. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of.

An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently. ...


VS


PARASITIC:
parasitic also parasitical adj. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a parasite .

Having to do with a parasite, as in a parasitic infection; or acting like a parasite by taking nourishment from another. ...




Any other problems here?

[PostmodernProphet]

the Coleman family at Marcy's Parasite Shower....

http://colemanfamily.org/photos/baby-shower/01.jpg

[Osborn F. Enready]

Nice appeal to emotion..... kudos.... right at the level I had you figured for. ;)

[Alonzo]

the Coleman family at Marcy's Parasite Shower....

http://colemanfamily.org/photos/baby-shower/01.jpg

And to the left you can see that one of the little parasites escaped.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
And to the left you can see that one of the little parasites escaped.

Thank you for pointing that out Al.


.... thereby proving my point, it was only living parasiticly for a period of time, until birth, when it STARTS to live a life of a person, as a person.

parasites die when removed from a host.

[PostmodernProphet]

And to the left you can see that one of the little parasites escaped.''
still feeding on his mother's cake I see....

[PostmodernProphet]

.... thereby proving my point, it was only living parasiticly for a period of time, until birth, when it STARTS to live a life of a person, as a person.

parasites die when removed from a host.

you can dance around it all you want, nobody is buying it....

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
you can dance around it all you want, nobody is buying it....

I don't have to sell reality, its free, and you'll get it whether you want it or not.

Denial only affects your level of happiness. ;)

[Mia]

PMP, there IS a difference between a parasite and something behaving parasitically.

Parasite:
...
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasitism)
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return.


#3 is purely subjective. Many would say a fetus or a baby could be defined in this way.

#2 is objective. A fetus does survive parasitically. I have no problem acknowledging this; it doesn't change the fact that it's not a biological parasite, and comparisons to such are illogical.

[Alonzo]

''
still feeding on his mother's cake I see....

No biggie, I'm sure some raid would take care of it.

[Mia]

No biggie, I'm sure some raid would take care of it.

I hope so, if the adults there are going to marry her off or turn him into a predator. Or if they put him/her under a tap for water torture.

[cronic]

I respect all life, WITHIN REASON AND LOGICAL PERSPECTIVE. I don't let emotional or religious mumbo jumbo interfere where logic and reason demand priority.


aw... smilez.. How compassionate OS..
I didn't think you had in it ya